(PC) Patterson v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al, No. 1:2017cv01428 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/18/18. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VESTER L. PATTERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01428-DAD-BAM ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2, 6) Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Vester L. Patterson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 22 (Doc. No. 2.) On October 30, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(g) because he had suffered three prior strike dismissals, and that plaintiff be required to pay 25 the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and 26 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 27 to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) After seeking and receiving two 28 extensions of time in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. Nos. 7, 1 1 2 8, 10, 11), plaintiff did so on February 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 12.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 3 conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 4 plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 5 record and by proper analysis. 6 In his objections, plaintiff contends that he is in imminent danger of serious physical 7 injury, which would permit him to proceed in forma pauperis despite having three strikes against 8 him. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In support of this argument, however, plaintiff merely restates the 9 allegations of his complaint that he is suffering from a bleeding nose, loss of appetite, and fatigue. 10 (Doc. No. 1 at 4; Doc. No. 12 at 2.) The assigned magistrate judge previously found that these 11 alleged conditions, even if true, do not rise to the level of imminent danger. (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) 12 The undersigned concurs with this analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The findings and recommendations issued October 30, 2017 (Doc. No. 6) are adopted in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 17 3. Within twenty-one days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff is required 18 19 to pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; 4. 20 21 of this action without prejudice to refiling upon prepayment of the filing fee; and 5. 22 23 24 Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2